he signed on to it. and threw away a perfectly good presidency. an otherwise successful presidency. because of that. we have twice gone into the grand bargain, the simpson bowlessome simple stuff, hire ts for promises of spending cuts and the spending cuts to not happen in the taxes due and the american people did very grumpy at the people who raise their taxes and spending restraint did not happen. what's going to happen? i don't know. i think we get a better deal if it is televised. i think we get a better agreement if it is available for the american people to see for seven days in a row. i think both parties have claims to a mandate. i prefer the cards the republicans hold because they hold them for 10 years,

democrats -- the presidency for four. looking at the states which have senate races up, i think the argument that obama will have to essentially extends the tax cuts as is come from of the 20 d's who are up, many of them in quite red states and the r's -- either very strong candidates because they all survived in 2008 and got elected against the obama landslide that year. whereas obama agreed to continue the tax cuts because he feared his own reelection, this time it is the democrats in the senate in a similar position obama was. >> thank you very much. i believe there are two narratives and it seems like both of the jim demint in their own way. but there is also the question of political psychology. and it is clear some republicans, some moderate republicans, some neo-

conservatives, some people who were advisers to governor romney, that they do think that president obama got a mandate and suggest the republicans make major concessions. to what extent in your conversation with house republicans, to what extent this feeling is kind of common among rank and file members? >> the cheerful news from the taxpayer perspective is that the republicans are not at all spooked or distraught. a lot of people thought looking ahead a year ago, six months ago, that we would like the republican president and senate. the sense of unhappiness republicans had was from the stock market in go up -- not that you lost your life savings -- you end up with the status quo when we thought we were on a trend and were going to get the presidency and the senate. so, that was disappointing. you had people unhappy.

it is a little hard to argue that the modern republican party running on a fundamental reform of entitlement that which all the establishment people of washington said are for -- but when republicans pass a budget that does it they say, though, where is the one with the tax increases? there are not interested in the fundamental reforms of entitlements but tax increases. the r's are holding. i talked to all the cheerful guys there and they are moving forward. remember, every time republicans have a bad election cycle -- 64, 1974, 1976, 1982, 1986, 1998, 2006, 2008 -- all sorts of helpful people come out and explain that the modern republican party should turn left. and when the republican party has not taken that cheerful but vice -- advice, they've done

better. there is no sense of being spooked. people like a year before people -- in the before. there always advocate and, you should become liberal democrats, that would be a good idea. not the advice democrats can't make it a shellacking. it is not as credible. there is not a sense of panic. where i do think we have an intelligent rethinking going on -- and it is not even a shift so much as a changed against the people who wanted to do it, wanted to do it three months of three years ago, is on immigration reform. there, the republican party should look at the fact that it should be doing much better and has done much better with the hispanic vote, but when they allowed a few loud voices to cow people into thinking that immigrant bashing is sound policy or politics, i think they

are real dangers. the good news is there are a series of meetings that have been going on. i spent this weekend with the national coalition of hispanic state legislators in new mexico talking about these topics. the business community wants immigration reform. the communities of faith -- roman catholic church, very unhappy with the way obama is treating them today, the evangelicals and charismatic, the mormon church, most pro- immigrant church in the country. in utah, they pass a counter to the arizona bill -- here is your permit, you can stay around. the building blocks of the modern republican party, the free market people, those who understand labor and capital and means production understand this. and we ended up with a few loud

voices that represented nobody but themselves, and yet there was this sense it -- there must be a jillion bullfrogs and the pound. but when you drain the town, there are three. spear them. i think there is a very serious discussion going on about immigration, and there should be. i have been at press conferences with jack kemp for years on that -- we just did not get attention. but now i think there is more attention and more focused and it will happen. we've seen a number of voices -- the head of the southern baptist convention will have long been good on this, and louder voice, clearer voice, more listened to voice. salem communications, major christian radio stations. on that, i think you will see movement. it is not that the republican party is not rethinking what it is doing, it is not just going to become the attack -- tax hike spend everything party -- the democrats.

there is a place for people like that. but we are a party who wants to talk to every immigrant -- not just hispanics, but immigrants from all the countries in the world and say we will deal with you with respect and appreciation and the country would be better off with more of the year and not fewer. >> thank you very much. what we are going to do now is moved to general conversation. we have about 45 minutes. because c-span is here, my request is for everybody to introduce themselves briefly. not just people in the room but for those watching c-span, so they will be able to understand. >> jonathan rausch from brookings institution, national journal. here is a question -- if house republicans vote for a compromise that includes either a tax rate increase or a tax

increase that is not revenue neutral, what should that member expect to happen in his primary race? >> good question. the taxpayer protection pledge is a pledge by design and share with all candidates, in a sense that i promised the people of my state and the american bible vote against any net tax increase -- either raising rates or broadening the base unless rates come down. tax reform, yes. simplification, absolutely. reduced taxes -- no net tax increase. most republicans in the house and senate have made that commitment. a handful of democrats. about 1300 state legislators and governors -- a lot of people have chosen to make a commitment to their constituents. people coming in and saying, grover, could you tell somebody it is ok for them to break their word to their constituents?

no. i am not actually in this equation. these are commitments they made to their own voters when they got elected, that they would not support tax increases. they say -- look, when i go to washington i an not raising taxes. i and reforming government so it costs less. but there is a problem i will reform government and not say, hey, there is a problem so everybody said more money so we can continue what we have been doing for the last 20, 50, 70 years. when george herbert walker bush campaign with a promise not to raise taxes and turned around and raised taxes, in return for promises of spending cuts that did not happen, the american people unelected him. i did not think we needed to send a press release out to inform people that he raise taxes. when constituents do this, both democrats will run against them -- as he saw in utah, they beat

mia love because she raise taxes as mayor. republicans to raise taxes to their own brand a great deal of damage, particularly if they put in writing to their constituents that that is not who they are and not what they do. >> grover, you alluded to this but i wish you would fleshes out. you mentioned there is roughly 60% of the republican caucus but represented by the study committee that as the only thing worse than sequestration would be no cuts at all -- alluded to the -- people trying to break a groundswell to protect the pentagon against the cuts. and related -- how problematic is it that the self-described conservatives like bill kristol called for tax increases to protect the pentagon which then allows the major media to say

even conservatives like bill kristol support tax increases to protect the pentagon. like me from the cato institute declaring myself and abroad and therefore being supportive of it's out of the reform and sang even the liberal kato institute endorses entitlement reform. >> taking it back words -- bill kristol has been on record saying it conservative did not want to be the war party, he would join up with the liberal hawks -- the democrat liberal hawks. i am not quite sure where it is the plural in democrat liberal hawks. i get to one and then i cannot think of more. but it was an odd sort of threat but it was kind of an explanation that he does not see himself as a mainstream reagan republican, that everything -- not reaganite foreign-policy but hawkish foreign policy.

is not surprising. it is what he does, but it is not at all transferable. there isn't a caucus in the house and senate that falls and that kerkorian -- in that category. there are some people who are appropriators who are always in danger of going to the dark side. the joke -- three parties in washington -- republicans, democrats, and appropriators. that has been approved -- improved a little bit with the ban on some of the targeted handout. not completely. i have talked to some guys who probably would wish that they could make some of the defense cuts the way. the romney people will serve the country and themselves when they ran the campaign that if the defense budget is cut, all these jobs would disappear. we just spent four years making fun of obama's multiplier that if the government spends x

number of dollars you create jobs. that is like arguing that people who are involved in organ donations are creating additional kidneys. no, they are not, they are just moving them around. the government decree jobs the way to create a blood -- no, it does not. -- the government creates the governmentticks bri blood. no, it is not. the idea you can stand on one side of a lake, see obama with reebok attended the three buckets and walk around the other side and in front of ms and -- msnbc cameras, announced that you are filling the water to great depths. that is keynesian economics. there are people who believe this stuff. i was taught in school.

luckily, i refused to learn it. because it is nonsense. it takes a dollar from somebody -- otherwise, shoplifters and bank robbers would be considered very helpful because they are always moving money from one place to the other. and evidently you get twice as much money if you steal the first dollar, it turns into two. there are people with ph.d.'s who talk like this. but they are democrats. for the republicans to talk about how defense spending creates jobs i think is unfortunate. you can make an argument that you need this airplane for this tank, or the canadians of being annoying again, keep an eye on them. i, for that. we should have a strong national defense. but do not sell it as a jobs program. it is intellectually dishonest. it was a shame that it was done.

[inaudible] >> patch from reuters news. what are three revenue-raising provisions that a pledge synar can vote for in a fiscal cliff resolution? >> sure, the top tax shrimp -- marginal rate from 35 down to 25 you would have great supply-side effects. european average is 25. we are at 35. the canadians are at 17. the and hemorrhaging cash. they are doing that. lower marginal tax -- tax rates, lower capital gains. obama taking the best tax up to 55% after a million dollars -- death tax up. you do not have to be rich to find a house increasing the value, the money saved up in a 401k. supply-side tax deduction

account. selling assets -- you talk about the defense department's sitting on a whole bunch of spectrum that it bought at to make available. a lot of assets you can sell. there is land you consult. a whole bunch of oil and the ground if obama gets out of the way of drilling on federal land rather than making it difficult. drilling for oil and natural gas on federal land has declined under obama. he says, look at all of this new drilling and natural gas. on private land where you cannot stop it yet. that is true. but taking a pro-growth approach on that would be helpful. [inaudible] it was the last time around, and it will be again, i am sure. boehner, and company, they're talking about that last time around. >> your tax pledge as between the representatives and the

people but you are seen as the umpire or arbiter. if there is a net increase in taxes, as an arbiter would you say it is in violation of the pledge and are you worried by the words you are hearing from speaker boehner? are they talking to -- talking about a net increase or our people hearing it wrong? >> he said he is in favor of revenues come from growth and series spending restraint. -- serious spending restraint. one number that does not pittosporum is the cbo says if you grow at 4% a year -- congressional budget office -- they do static modeling. a whole bunch of things i think and this is the case for how important growth is and how to get it, but their number, if you grow 4% a year, reagan numbers, instead of 2% a year, france's last 20 years or obama's i point, you do that for a decade

2% additional growth, the federal government nets' $5 trillion more than it would have because more people working. if at this point from the bottom of recession, if obama's growth had been as strong as right in there would be 10 million more americans at work and gdp would be 10% higher. that is the cost of the regulatory attack and attack the tax and spending and that stuff rather than the approach right into. 10 million americans out of work because obama went in his direction rather than right in's direction, 10% smaller gdp. the guys who want more money from the pentagon should be focused on economic growth and not try to take a larger piece of a shrinking pie. i think the growth is the only way to get out -- 4% a year instead of obama's rate for a decade and you wipe out obama's accumulated debt and his first term, the $5 trillion he has run up. i think there are very important

focuses on growth. when we see something in writing -- i am not going to get involved in some hypothetical because every once in awhile i explain a hypothetical and then it gets turned into more than i perhaps said or intended to say. but when something is written down -- and the good news is you have it written down, you put it on line for seven days, and the press and the american people look at it. nobody has to call me -- is this a tax increase? take a look at it. it will be either clearly a tax increase or not. we did not have any problems with the 2011 budget deal. it was not a tax increase. easy. the 2010 budget deal -- not a tax increase. we got lots of deals and nobody calls me on the phone wondering whether it is a tax increase are not. usually people ask when they've got some new gold bird theory on how to raise taxes, and they

think if they move in fast enough in front of me they will say, that of a cake, wasn't it? wait a minute, said it down, -- set it down and look at it. >> you do not think republicans are actually talking about a net tax increase. >> obama once higher-margin a tax increase to punish people who work on saturdays. i do not think he will get that. i did not think there is an interest. any more and -- revenue from grove so he can pay down some of the dead and some of the bills he has run up, that is going to be necessary. trillion --ama's $5 we are going to have to pay it. i would rather do with a growth rather than higher taxes which would slow economic growth. >> bob with the national interest magazine. i would like to talk a little bit about the dual mandate your referred to and posit three

quick propositions and see how the come to the other. the first is -- presidential elections are largely referendums on the incumbent for the incumbent party. in that vein, if that is the case, as i believe, you would have to say that barack obama's performance as judged by the electorate was not tremendous. perhaps lack west as -- lackluster but not perhaps as lackluster to make him a lift -- ineligible for rehire perry -- rehired. secondly, when the country is in serious deadlock as we are now -- it has happened in history but not often -- but it generally means the deadlock is focused on the definitional question, the question of the definition of america. then the question of this in the country is, is it going to go toward a european-style social democracy or is it going to go more toward traditional conservative populism of a

jackson or a reagan. certainly, when a country manages to deal with such a deadlock or to change the direction, it comes only through presidential leadership. it doesn't come through any other means. so, you've got a lot of red here, and that may be a good harbinger for your party but it does not say anything about how the country is going to move forward in terms of what you promote. so, given all of that -- if you buy any of it -- to what extent do you see any way in the world that the next four years will be anything other than a continuation of the last four, -- struggling, muddling through, kicking the can down the road and not really dealing with the fundamental problems of america? >> 3 very good questions.

i would say that obama's first term has two parts -- before and after the 2010 election, just as the clinton administration was also two parts. they never talk about -- the talk about the last six years, when republicans were present, -- were present, with welfare reform, but they never talk about the first two years when democrats ran everything and threaten to raise taxes. i am in favor of the last six years of the clinton administration -- a lower tax rates on capital gains. republicans wanted more. the beginning of spending restraints. and none of his spending policies took fruition. four years, two, two-year sections -- in obama's term. my suggestion is the third act looks a lot like 2011-2012. we talked about the dual

mandate. 86% of obama's ads or personal attacks on romney. romney gives people cancer. not morning in america. not -- here is my plan for the future, here is my entitlement reform, here is my plan. the republicans actually voted for and wrote down a real budget scored by cbo twice with virtually every republican voting for it in the house. they said it was the son of the house was the body that actually went through and give it more than once. they made it clear where they were going. obama ran against romney because he was going to raise taxes. the president won a mandate not to be romney for the next four years. because from the gives people cancer and is a bad person and is mean to dogs. he did not make a case for what he wants to do. he did not spend time on that in either defending his record or

making the case what the next four years will look like, other than romney would be a bad person. but deadlock and gridlock is better than moving in the wrong direction. stasis the last two years have been an improvement than the first two years of his administration. talking about presidential leadership -- we will have a certain amount of good luck in washington on a number of issues. listing things obama once, the house of not for them, list the things the republicans want and obama is not for them and harry reid is not for the. at the state level -- you think taxing high income people does not affect growth? we are having an experiment. california. it is called maryland. i don't see any reason why we do not wait two years and see how california is doing with their new higher marginal tax rates on folks. and sales taxes on middle income

people as well. illinois raising income taxes and sales taxes and maryland's -- a millionaire's tax for those -- they cannot leave because they are federal workers -- and those making a million dollars and walk across the border. they are testing obama's theories in the states. i think they should do it on a small state like vermont first and see how it works. but they wanted to california so we are doing california. texas and florida will give you an idea of how you can govern without an income tax -- not a 13% income-tax. people move. the kind of know what will happen -- indiana passed right to work, cutting taxes, giving half the kids in the state school choice, a voucher, a scholarship of $5,000. illinois just raise taxes so as

not to reform the government pension system. who is going to build a factory within 100 miles on the western side of that border? any takers for the people who think jobs and opportunities are going to move into illinois, or not? why, if we know something it is not going to work, do we impose a nationally when we wanted to let the state level. people that the leading blue states for decades. not always to warmer climates -- states with lower income tax and less spending. people move to the states with fewer government services. really? why do we pretend that is what people want as opposed to what the unionized bureaucracy in the state government says it wants. we are also seeing test on school choice.

louisiana and indiana both have over half a million people-plus will the full school of choice, democrats in arizona. democrats complaining if you allow school choice there would be organ harvesting something -- something awful will happen in. we will actually see how well it works. i think we are in very good shape. where will presidential leadership, from? we had 10 people running for president, some try to sell books, some auditioning for radio talk shows, some doing marriage counseling -- only a subset were running actually for president. and all of these lovely governors we have doing back flips and flops now, they were not there yet at the time. chris christie had just by doing incredible things. bobby jindal just aren't doing incredible things when it was time to pull the trigger on running. four years and now you could fill a room with seven successful republican governors who could govern and answer

questions without shooting themselves in the foot. look, romney was the governor of massachusetts. i am from massachusetts -- prior to emigrating to the united states and live there. it is not the rest of the country. republican governor but a% democrat -- you are a goalie, have to take shots on goal and he stopped a lot of the shots and he did amazing things on defense. but you could not say he governed the state. it is not reasonable because of the way it was structured. a difficult case to make ann romney did not do it. -- and romney did not do it. >> grover, one thing you have not really talked about today is controlling are shrinking the size of government. you just talk about taxes. but the objective of holding the line or lowering the taxes is alternately supposed to be it to

contain or reduce the size of government. do you feel closer or further from that goal today? >> much closer, and for two reasons. one was the tea party and the other was the ryan budget, the ryan plan. up until the tea party i would have been here and told you obama is going to spend too much money, but you can't get american people upset about spending too much, you have to wait until spending too much became a tax increase. that is why i thought the blood was eighth best -- the best defense. but obama showed with the same misreading of his mandate -- when some suggest a >> it is miss reading his mandate, he did it four years ago. he threw away 70% approval rating within a few months. spend, spend, stimulus package written in the dark and all this other stuff. massive debt and spending. and you had 1 million going to

the streets in august -- april 15, but i only just shown up and started spending like crazy. you then had a reaction from the tea party movement, which reacted in 2010. people lost the elections over spending too much. the first guy to get whacked was arlen specter of pennsylvania. i was working with him to try to get him reelected. he was going to be good on the labor union demands -- then not willing to have elections to prepare -- take power. he was going to be good on judges, final taxes. he was going to fend off the right of center primary and people to govern and to get reelected. obama came and said if you vote for stimulus, i will -- stay out of philadelphia and we could probably do things helpful to pennsylvania. and egos, i just won election. i am going to win the primary

and sign on the stimulus and obama will stay out -- from against me. within two months he was unelectable all the spending issue. not the tax issue but spending. the pig in the python, a freshman class that came in in 2010, with spending ringing in their ears. they are going to be focused on spending the way got elected 20 or 40 years ago were not -- reagan, texas, got it. regulations, got it. spending in general, but as a vote moving issue, it was. that is what is very shocking. and then ryan comes in -- i consider the ryan played to be all about spending, entitlement reform. bring spending down to 60% of gdp. obama's plan takes 38.

the ryan plan versus the obama into the future -- although the obama thing and eventually blows up and get aspics' because he cannot calculate that amount of debt and what it would do to the country. the ryan plan is all about reforming entitlements suspending of the smaller percentage of gdp rather than a larger percentage. and the tax part, lower marginal, territorial system, gives you stronger economic growth. i think the modern republican party which has been field tested, veterans defending entitled the reform, and talking about that and having people try to beat them on it and trip them up is infinitely stronger than the republican party four years ago, six years ago, on the spending issue. every crisis -- spend more money on. never saw a crisis and said

let's spend less. every crisis of bigger government. >> i do not say this election as a ringing endorsement of tea party of the ryan plan. can you tell me why did obama win? he promised to raise taxes. >> two things -- he dropped 8 million votes from the time before, the margin a got a shrinking. he was the incumbent. he ran a better campaign and we had a camera -- candidate who had a myriad laws, starting with the fact the introduced obamacare in massachusetts and pushed it. the little hard to be the candidate against obamacare when you have that happening. because it was massachusetts where he was governor, he did not have the kind of record mitch daniels would have a bobby jindal what have or. scott -- rick perry, who could say this is what i did my stay with a republican legislature, we are doing interesting and cool things -- school choice. port reform. romney had none of that and back

on. the add they ran against army when he was going to -- obama did say something the press did not focus on. although we sent it out as a press release. in 2008 romney said i would never raise your taxes if you earn less than $250,000 a year -- not your income taxes, not your sales taxes or excise taxes. no tax increases. in 2010, august 8, starting in grand junction, colorado, he started to say and repeated verbatim again and again, my plan is that if you earn less than $250,000, i will not raise your income taxes next year. take changes in his promise that the that it talked about on cbs, nbc, cnn, or any of the networks. he just announced that he can do an energy tax tomorrow and not have broken his word.

an energy tax, wacking the middle class. he could raise income taxes on people a year from now. which is why what he wanted to do is kick out the bush rates for those making less than 250 -- $250,000 a year. this is where you talk about the dual mandate. we are talking about marginal tax rates, higher income people and successful small businesses. that raises $400 billion -- there are other taxes, in addition to the rate increases he wants to include. over a decade. he has $800 billion he plans to raise from high income people. the size of the debt -- if he gets that, in his budget, assuming he gets the tax hike -- he raises $8 trillion in debt over the next decade. having solved the less than 10% of the problem, he then comes back and says, now, who is going to pay the $8 trillion?

that is the energy tax. which, of course, the treasury department -- carvin in e-mails several thousand times -- with arbon in their e-mails 7000 times perry are the typing it out on carbon vapor? they -- you cannot turn the united states into a european social welfare system with the income tax. it can't be done. rates have to be too high. people will not pay it. and you have all the problems that carter had with the same challenges. double taxing savings and investment and business income just gets to be too heavy a burden. every major country that introduced the vat, it stayed in. we are now looking at the entry

point for the vat is energy tax and when asked about it the obama people say if the republicans were to recommend we would be all over it. the guy who promised he would not raise taxes on the middle income sank if somebody else touches the murder weapon first he would be right there. he is for looting the middle class. he just wants republican fingerprints on the process. so, either we let -- we win or lose this fight on the tax increase on but none of the people -- that is not the target, it does not give you any money. you cannot turn to friends that way. in need the tax on the middle class, vat, energy tax, and that is what the second term is all about. until we get past the stupid -- raising taxes on a handful of people and we still have $8 trillion in additional debt me is running up over the decade. yes, got to fix that, don't we? you know who the target is? >> from "los angeles times."

two questions -- a quick follow- up from bill schneider's. the white house likes to point to exit polls that appears to show 60% of the voting public was in favor of increasing marginal tax rates at least on the top two percent. why are they wrong? in an earlier exchange of the phrase was used -- if republicans are talking about tax increases -- actually, republicans are talking about tax increases. calling it revenue increases as part of the deal. plenty of republican members of congress are scrambling are looking for ways to tinker with things are then marginal tax rates. i will name three specific members who have talked about it or something very much to like it, all who signed the pledge. bob corker, tom coburn, and john mccain. what is going on? it certainly looks to a layman that there is a desperate scramble to find a way to raise

revenue in a cbo-scoring way that would not be seen as violating the pledge. the question is, is the pledge of losing its magic? >> i take very strong exception to taking this poll seriously. because if you ask people, the vast majority of whom are not going to be subjected to this tax, and they are being told that somebody else will have to pay. and if you discover in the process that only 60% of the voters are in favor of that, i think it speaks for itself and speaks very well of the american people. if you have a public opinion poll where the voters would be asked how would you feel if we cut all of your taxes by half, and those -- also give your children free tuition, except we

would have to have a referendum on exiling barack obama from the united states i would be interesting to hear the results of this poll. polls like that in my view should not be part of the serious conversation. everything else you said i completely agree with perry [laughter] >> by contemporary standards that means i won. [laughter] >> the exit poll that was done asked several questions and if you cut and paste some of them you get to 60% number. but they actually asked a question that it's interesting that people in the press to come up with a 60% number ignore an actual question was, should you raise taxes to reduce the debt, which is the question which is on the table, 63% said no. you can also look at the history of questions when they have the same questions raised on the discussion over the debt ceiling increase. if we raise taxes on the rich, do you believe it will end up

taxing the middle class? yes, 75%. if we raise taxes in this budget deal, you think they will just spend the money? 63% said, yes, they will just spend the money. it can get some of -- if there were unicorns what color would you like -- from voters. but if you ask the question if they raise taxes, would they just ended? yes. if they are raising taxes on the rich, are they really coming after you? yes. people ask how come people are so much against attack from somebody else. california had an initiative last year to raise taxes on cigarettes. only 8% of the people in california smoke cigarettes. the only state that smoked less is utah, and they have a rule against it. in california it got voted down even though it was a tax on the other. i felt that was fairly interesting. on the pledge -- corker, mccain,

and coburn. in the modern republican party neither of those are considered thought leaders on economic issues. corker just got reelected promising people in the state he will not do this, so did tom coburn and john mccain. i spent a lot of time when coburn when he was walking into the gang of six negotiations and i talked to him on the phone and send him a letter and i said here is the history of 1982, 1990. you're walking down the alley with unsavory people and this will not end well. he said, look, first of all -- we are not doing anything for tax increases, only revenue increases from growth. that is what we are doing. it was a letter to me but it was an open letter which he made public. made it clear that was the only kind of revenue it would be for. in conversation he kept saying will lett think they

us have spending restraint until there are tax increases. he was wrong and everyone else was right because in the budget control act, $2.50 trillion -- but no tax increases. he actually had to walk out of the negotiations because when he sat there with dick durbin -- he said, grover, i am not really for tax increases. i and just putting tax increases on the table here and durbin is giving me all of these spending cuts and i have not agreed to anything. i just talk about tax increases. i said -- senator, do you think it is possible durbin goes back to the democratic caucus and says i am putting these imaginary spending cuts on the table -- and he is giving me the tax increases. tom coburn from oklahoma said he would never be that dishonest. senator, i think he is and i think you are not. and i think he takes you seriously and i think you should not take him seriously. but again, they spend more than a year putting a the simpson-

bowles commission, which, if you have seen a, a slide presentation, an outline, it is in haiku, the only numbers and the page numbers. it is a series of interesting things. there are specific about the tax burden going up by 815% -- $5 trillion in tax increases. as ryan reads this as a trillion dollars in tax increases from eliminating or reducing deductions and exemptions and so one. and ryan sees that in addition to the five. i don't read that in the essay that is simpson-bowles, but ryan was in the discussions and i was not. it is either $5 trillion tax increase with a billion specified and the rest not, or

$6 trillion deficit with the goals set up plus the one. $6 trillion tax increase or five. particularly since the spending cuts have been agreed to buy none of the democrats. we do know obama included -- he said nice things about simpson- bowles. there are some spending restraints. not a single one of those ideas was put into obama's budget, not one. we know he is not for any of that. when republicans offered to put them into subsequent savings from the budget control act, the democrats all objected. they are officially against every saving -- every saving discussed in simpson-bowles. so, when they spent nine months discussing simpson-bowles, a $5 trillion tax increase and hint at tax reform and spending reform, and when they finally went into the room to see what they came up with, they did not have legislative language which it of taken two weeks and then -- done by staffers. a pilot typewritten -- pile of

typewritten pages that the says "all work and no play makes jack a bellboy" if you watch the movie. nothing in nine months. it is not real. people say this imaginary agreement that is not written down -- massive tax increases, a little on spending, simpson- bowles is a distraction from the fact that the two parties fundamentally disagree on the direction of the country, and this is where we a people who tell you why don't we have the good old days of bipartisan compromise, they are telling you how old they are. because they are old enough to remember 30 years ago when parties did not mean anything in terms of being right or left. >> has the pledge lost its magic? when i look and say what looks like an erosion in the republican ranks. >> you are mistaken -- but all

through 2010 and 2011 there were headlines of the major newspapers explaining republicans were about to raise taxes and the pledge is about to fall apart. this is the 27th time the assertion has been made in the last couple of years. if you look at it, the entire republican leadership has been elected on that commitment, in the house and the senate. the people who sometimes have a conversation -- you left out lindsey graham -- if the democrats gave us democrats gave10 to 1 in thomas reform i could, even though i promised people of south carolina i would not, i would vote for a tax increase to get this fundamental about and reform. i said, have you ever met a democrat willing to do that? i said, senator, you are offering a tax increase and return for a golden unicorn that the not exist and i did not stay up late at night because he said, look, anything that is

not the, reform big in the cake is phony. he is very dismissive of other people who lost after promises of tax cuts. he is going to be having a much tougher deal. no,i don't think that -- the commitment by the modern republican party house and senate, governors, is to reduce spending and not to raise taxes. although one can get a congressman or senator talk about a hypothetical and get in trouble. i usually call them after it has been in the paper and say, did you mean to endorse that? i have had discussions with corker and so as well. i do not think the d's will offer anything on spending that we even -- that would even tempt somebody to break their commitment to their constituents. >> grover, i am reminded that beethoven famously -- who

famouslydeaf famously said i shall hear in heaven. as you know, we have huge problems. the international environment is not part of the discussion. july 1914 and slow motion. we have a trillion dollar deficit plus. two-thirds of dodd-frank had not been written, etcetera. i have not heard any solutions. i think you are right -- you ought to published on-line bills, we don't do that. i think transparency is great. but we have a real situation that unless it is fixed, this fiscal cliff could be potentially catastrophic especially when it is added to what is happening in europe. what can do you think then begun positively given a deadlock? if we did not get this fixed, would you agree we have a huge problem? >> yes, we have a huge problem. the federal government has run up $5 joe in of that and nothing

to show for it the last four years, the economy is weak -- the government has run up $5 trillion in debt. you go back into the century, they have all recoup a lot faster than this one. obama and hoover both reacted the same way to a recession, which was more spending, higher taxes, and massive new regulations and fdr -- who had not done anything hoover had not done already, except the sec, are doing the same thing. i think there was very serious damage done to the economy and world economy by the approach as bush has done running up to this and obama has put on steroids. there were many problems with bush allowing the clinton changes with fannie mae and freddie mac to continue, to not be ended.

and that was a very big problem. this hostility -- the tea party, i understand because they change the direction of the modern republican party to make it much more serious about spending and it was not before. >> how you fix it? complaining does not work. >> house republicans have already passed a budget that would work. the past an extension of the tax cuts that would work. you go in and have the conversations in front of the american people without ads about how romney is mean to dogs and cause cancer and actually talking about issues. i think that is the debate we need to have. we certainly did not have it in this last election. we can have it now. it is very helpful. i think at the end of the day we will make the right decision, partially because the democrats and terrified -- but cliff he -- obama is threatening to drive the mover and the will not have

to do that as a bomb threat to pull off a cliff a year ago august and did not. >> i thought i nailed down where i thought you were, that were not going to get the negotiations required to not sail along the fiscal cliff. >> the tax hike and the sequester, i consider them very different projects. obama is trying to put them together. the same way the guy who does three card monte. >> what i hear is one of them will be sailing off january 1. and at that point, doctors quit accepting medicare because they get 30% less, i believe the number is, payroll taxes go up, which sort of weeks all the

people up, the 90% that never heard of sequester. i am having a very difficult time visualizing what february looks like when the press gets ahold of this, and then all of a sudden we also have the debt limit. i just can't see what we're going to do -- >> the debt limit is an additional tool to explain to obama that he is not the king, ok, and like henry the eighth, you have to go to parliament for money. he might want to nationalize the monasteries, but i did not begin to get as much these days as a good backbend with that approach. you've got to go to parliament, you've got to go to congress for resources, for a debt ceiling and for all of these things. look, it will dawn on him that he is not the king, not the duke. he is one of the guys and a constitutional government that

has very limited powers. he should get on the phone with other people who have been president and second terms -- as clinton what he got a compass and a second term which did not include citing republican legislation. -- ask, and what he got accomplished in the second term which the not include signing republican legislation? i think he has to recognize the damage he has done on spending, on taxes, regulation. we are about to hit all the ugly bits of obamacare. they passed obamacare, 3000 pages. there is a reason they did not pass it in 12 pieces. if i was running a bill i thought was popular -- let's cut the death tax, capital gains, different pieces of legislation. you wanted people to watch it. that is not how they did it obamacare. they bundled it up because they thought there were 121 appeases an? no. two things they were proud of that would have immediately --

pre-existing conditions and 26 year olds can stay at home on mom and dad's insurance. the rest is a series of tax increases and taking away your ability to have health care as you understood it prior to everything they told you not. a very unpleasant set of surprises for the american people on obamacare all the way in the future. this tax increase, the sequestration, this is not the only bumpy part of the road. and the massive problems of regulations on banks. there is a lot of damage to the economy yet to be done bearing they will try to shut down fracking. that is why i would argue that when we look at this fight, 30 read states doing better than 13 bluer states and the voices are out there -- a lot of different approaches people are taking, including how they handle obamacare. >> thank you very much and thank

you all for what i think it's a very good conversation. i am not sure whether grover was able to persuade everyone. but your position was quite clear and i think well understood. president obama going to be reasonable -- it is how you define reasonable. thank you very much. [applause] >> have it on c-span so everybody can see what goes on. >> today, a conversation with president obama's campaign manager. he sits down with politico's chief white house correspondent to talk about his work with the president and how his campaign was successful. live starting at 8:10 a.m. .astern on c-span 3 parr >> how does one adequately

express his feelings about a special friend? when that friend is also a world icon, a national hero of unimaginable proportion. and a legend whose name will live in history long after all here today have been forgotten. fate looked down kindly on us when she chose neal to be the first to venture into another world, and to have the opportunity to look back from space at the beauty of our own. it could have been another, but it wasn't. and it wasn't for a reason. no one, no one but no one could have accepted the responsibility

of this remarkable accomplishment with a more dignity and more grace than neil armstrong. he embodied all that is good and all that is great about america. >> more from the memorial service for neil armstrong, thanksgiving day on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and just before 11:30 a.m., behind-the-scenes look about life as a teenager in the white house. just after 1:00 p.m., how scientists are using gaming skills and theories to solve world problems. >> on c-span this morning, "washington journal" is live with the news today from capitol hill. at noon eastern, a forum on the u.s. diplomatic efforts in the middle east. in 45 minutes, and grossman from "the wall street